48 Federal Judges Slam Trump
New York Times Editorial Shows Receipts
Editor's Note: New York Times editorial summarizes devastating condemnations of the Trump administration by 48 federal judges. Be sure to read the last three paragraphs, “What Happens Next,” for discussion of what SCOTUS may do with these issues. 🎁 Gift Link🎁
There have been more than 400 lawsuits brought against the Trump administration this year. Dozens of judges, appointed by both Democratic and Republican presidents ... (including four by President Trump)... have ruled against the administration. And they have often used tough, blunt language. ‘Egregious.’ ‘Brazen.’ ‘Lawless.’
How 48 Judges Describe Trump’s Actions, in Their Own Words
The editorial board is a group of opinion journalists whose views are informed by expertise, research, debate and certain longstanding values. It is separate from the newsroom.
Many Americans in positions of power, including corporate executives and members of Congress, seem too afraid of President Trump to stand up to his anti-democratic behavior. Federal judges have shown themselves to be exceptions. “Judges from across the ideological spectrum are ruling against administration policies at remarkable rates,” said Adam Bonica, a political scientist at Stanford University.
These rulings have halted Mr. Trump’s vengeful attempts to destroy law firms, forestalled some of his budget cuts and kept him from deporting additional immigrants. Yes, the Supreme Court has often been more deferential to the president. Still, it has let stand many lower-court rulings and has itself constrained Mr. Trump in some cases.
The bipartisan alarm from federal judges offers a roadmap for others to respond to Mr. Trump’s often illegal behavior. His actions deserve to be called out in plain language for what they really are. And people in positions of influence should do what they can to stand up for American values, as many judges have done.
Here, we’ve compiled quotations from judges’ recent rulings and bench comments.
Immigration
Courts have blocked some policies, including the deportation of additional detainees to a Salvadoran prison. Other policies remain in effect, including the confinement of immigrants previously deported to El Salvador. Many cases are still being heard.
J. Harvie Wilkinson III, Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, Appointed by Ronald Reagan
On the refusal to return Kilmar Abrego Garcia from El Salvador: “This is a path of perfect lawlessness, one that courts cannot condone.”
Leonie M. Brinkema, Eastern District of Virginia, Appointed by Bill Clinton
On an ICE official’s inconsistent affidavit: “This is a terrible, terrible affidavit. If this were before me in a criminal case and you were asking to get a warrant issued on this, I’d throw you out of my chambers.”
James E. Boasberg, District of Columbia District, Appointed by Barack Obama
On a judge’s order blocking deportations: “In an egregious case of cherry-picking, defendants selectively quote only a fragment of the court’s response here to mischaracterize its position.”
Patrick J. Schiltz, District of Minnesota, Appointed by George W. Bush
On the revocation of a student’s visa: “The court cannot imagine how the public interest might be served by permitting federal officials to flaunt the very laws that they have sworn to enforce.”
Charlotte N. Sweeney, District of Colorado, Appointed by Joe Biden
On a claim that courts “do not have a role” in regards to the Aliens Enemies Act: This sentence staggers. It is wrong as a matter of law and attempts to read an entire provision out of the Constitution.”
Clay D. Land, Middle District of Georgia, Appointed by George W. Bush
On an attempt to designate someone as an “alien enemy” without due process: “Allowing constitutional rights to be dependent upon the grace of the executive branch would be a dereliction of duty by this third and independent branch of government and would be against the public interest.”
David Briones, Western District of Texas, Appointed by Bill Clinton
On inconsistent evidence about gang affiliation: “Of great concern to this court is that respondents contradict themselves throughout the entire record.”
DeAndrea G. Benjamin, Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, Appointed by Joe Biden
On plaintiffs’ argument that the government issued a document under false pretenses: “The government has no response to this charge — a deafening silence.”
Jamal N. Whitehead, Western District of Washington, Appointed by Joe Biden
On a claim that a court order applied to fewer than 200 refugees: “The government’s interpretation is, to put it mildly, ‘interpretive jiggery-pokery’ of the highest order. ... It requires not just reading between the lines, but hallucinating new text that simply is not there.”
Paula Xinis, District of Maryland, Appointed by Barack Obama
On a failure to identify many officials involved in Kilmar Abrego Garcia’s removal: “Defendants have failed to respond in good faith, and their refusal to do so can only be viewed as willful and intentional noncompliance.”
Roger L. Gregory, Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, Appointed by George W. Bush
On a claim that Venezuela has invaded the U.S.: “As is becoming far too common, we are confronted again with the efforts of the executive branch to set aside the rule of law in pursuit of its goals.”
Stephanie D. Thacker, Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, Appointed by Barack Obama
On the need for due process before deporting Kilmar Abrego Garcia: “The government’s contention otherwise, and its argument that the federal courts are powerless to intervene, are unconscionable.”
Stephanie A. Gallagher, District of Maryland, Appointed by Donald Trump
On the deportation of an asylum seeker to El Salvador: “Defendants have provided no evidence, or even any specific allegations, as to how Cristian, or any other class member, poses a threat to public safety. ... This is a court of evidence.”
Patricia A. Millett, District of Columbia District, Appointed by Barack Obama
On the deportation of more than 200 Venezuelans to a prison in El Salvador: “Nazis got better treatment under the Alien Enemies Act than has happened here.”
Edward M. Chen, Northern District of California, Appointed by Barack Obama
On insinuations that Venezuelan immigrants are gang members: “Generalization of criminality to the Venezuelan T.P.S. population as a whole is baseless and smacks of racism predicated on generalized false stereotypes.”
Executive orders targeting critics
All four law firms that sued the Trump administration have won their cases, and none of the executive orders regarding them are in effect. The Associated Press partly won its case contesting Mr. Trump’s restrictions on its White House access.
Richard J. Leon, District of Columbia District, Appointed by George W. Bush
On an executive order targeting the law firm WilmerHale: “There is no doubt this retaliatory action chills speech and legal advocacy, or that it qualifies as a constitutional harm.”
John D. Bates, District of Columbia District, Appointed by George W. Bush
On an executive order targeting Jenner & Block: “In short, the order raises constitutional eyebrows many times over. It punishes and seeks to silence speech ‘at the very center of the First Amendment.’”
Beryl A. Howell, District of Columbia District, Appointed by Barack Obama
On an executive order targeting Perkins Coie: “In a cringe-worthy twist on the theatrical phrase ‘Let’s kill all the lawyers,’ E.O. 14230 takes the approach of ‘Let’s kill the lawyers I don’t like,’ sending the clear message: Lawyers must stick to the party line, or else.”
Trevor N. McFadden, District of Columbia District, Appointed by Donald Trump
On The Associated Press’s access to the White House being restricted for not using “Gulf of America”: “Indeed, the government has been brazen.”
Transgender issues
A ban on transgender people in the military has taken effect while legal challenges continue. Other rulings have prevented the freezing of various funds related to trans policies.
Benjamin H. Settle, Western District of Washington, Appointed by George W. Bush
On the lack of evidence about negative effects from trans troops: “The government’s arguments are not persuasive, and it is not an especially close question on this record.”
Lauren J. King, Western District of Washington, Appointed by Joe Biden
On a claim that medical funding cuts would not cause harm because they hadn’t happened yet: “Defendants’ argument is disingenuous at best.”
Ana C. Reyes, District of Columbia District, Appointed by Joe Biden
On conflicting government descriptions of the trans ban: “I am not going to abide by government officials saying one thing to the public — saying what they really mean to the public — and coming in here to the court and telling me something different, like I’m an idiot. ... I am not an idiot.”
Christine P. O’Hearn, District of New Jersey, Appointed by Joe Biden
On a previous case involving military discharges: “It is hard to imagine how defendants can cite Nelson v. Miller with a straight face. ... Nelson actually supports plaintiffs’ position — not defendants’ position.”
John A. Woodcock Jr., District of Maine, Appointed by George W. Bush
On a funding freeze because of the state’s trans policies: “[The law] imposes numerous steps an agency must take before refusing or terminating funding for noncompliance. … The factual record does not indicate the federal defendants took any of these actions before freezing Maine’s federal funds.”
Citizenship
Mr. Trump’s order denying birthright citizenship remains the subject of legal challenges. Separately, rulings have blocked Mr. Trump’s order requiring voters to produce proof of citizenship.
Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, District of Columbia District, Appointed by Bill Clinton
On a claim that Mr. Trump’s voting policy was merely a suggestion: “This argument fails to persuade because it misconceives (and in one instance misrepresents) the executive order, plaintiffs’ claims, the law, and the facts.”
John C. Coughenour, Western District of Washington, Appointed by Ronald Reagan
On the order denying birthright citizenship: “I’ve been on the bench for over four decades. I can’t remember another case where the question presented is as clear as this one. This is a blatantly unconstitutional order.”
Deborah L. Boardman, District of Maryland, Appointed by Joe Biden
On the order denying birthright citizenship: “The executive order flouts the plain language of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution, conflicts with binding Supreme Court precedent, and runs counter to our nation’s 250-year history of citizenship by birth.”
Joseph N. Laplante, District of New Hampshire, Appointed by George W. Bush
On the order denying birthright citizenship: “The executive order contradicts the text of the 14th Amendment and the century-old untouched precedent that interprets it.”
Leo T. Sorokin, District of Massachusetts, Appointed by Barack Obama
On the order denying birthright citizenship: “Against this backdrop, it verges on frivolous to suggest that Congress drafted, debated and passed a constitutional amendment, thereafter enacted by the states, that imposed a consent requirement necessarily excluding the one group of people the legislators and enactors most specifically intended to protect.”
Pamela A. Harris, Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, Appointed by Barack Obama
On the order denying birthright citizenship: “It is hard to overstate the confusion and upheaval that will accompany any implementation of the executive order.”
Budget cuts and funding freezes
Judges have prevented some cuts from going into effect, such as the dismantling of the Education Department. Other cuts remain in effect, and courts are still considering several cases.
Amir H. Ali, District of Columbia District, Appointed by Joe Biden
On a claim that the court lacked jurisdiction: “Defendants’ instant motion does not meaningfully engage with the large body of precedent on this question.”
John J. McConnell Jr., District of Rhode Island, Appointed by Barack Obama
On a suspension of congressionally approved spending: “It is more than monetary harm that is at stake here. As Justice Anthony Kennedy reminds us, ‘Liberty is always at stake when one or more of the branches seek to transgress the separation of powers.’”
Royce C. Lamberth, District of Columbia District, Appointed by Ronald Reagan
On a funding cut for the agency overseeing Voice of America: “It is hard to fathom a more straightforward display of arbitrary and capricious actions than the defendants’ actions here.”
Julie R. Rubin, District of Maryland, Appointed by Joe Biden
On a prior ruling calling for the restoration of grants: “Defendants continue to ignore or misapprehend the court’s analysis.”
Myong J. Joun, District of Massachusetts, Appointed by Joe Biden
On a plan to cut the Department of Education’s staff in half: “None of these statements amount to a reasoned explanation, let alone an explanation at all.”
Mary S. McElroy, District of Rhode Island, Appointed by Donald Trump
On a claim that an agency was not responsible for a funding freeze it had announced: “In short, the government asks the court ‘to overlook the simplest, most logical explanation’ for what happened. The court declines.”
Lewis J. Liman, Southern District of New York, Appointed by Donald Trump
On an attempt to terminate New York City’s congestion-pricing plan: “That argument is nonsensical.”
Loren L. AliKhan, District of Columbia District, Appointed by Joe Biden
On a disparity between the Office of Management and Budget’s statements and policy: “It appears that O.M.B. sought to overcome a judicially imposed obstacle without actually ceasing the challenged conduct. The court can think of few things more disingenuous.”
William G. Young, District of Massachusetts, Appointed by Ronald Reagan
On a cut in funding for research into health disparities: “I have never seen government racial discrimination like this.”
DOGE and the firing of federal workers
Judges temporarily reinstated government watchdogs and thousands of federal workers who had been fired. This week, the Supreme Court ruled that the administration could resume its mass layoffs.
Amy Berman Jackson, District of Columbia District, Appointed by Barack Obama
On the firing of the head of a watchdog agency: “In sum, it would be antithetical to the very existence of this particular government agency and ... a constitutional license to bully officials in the executive branch into doing his will.”
Jeannette A. Vargas, Southern District of New York, Appointed by Joe Biden
On the Department of Government Efficiency’s access to Treasury Department systems: “This explanation is riddled with inconsistencies.”
Denise L. Cote, Southern District of New York, Appointed by Bill Clinton
On concerns that unauthorized DOGE employees could see personal data: “The defendants’ Kafkaesque argument to the contrary would deprive the plaintiffs of any recourse under the law.”
Tanya S. Chutkan, District of Columbia District, Appointed by Barack Obama
On DOGE’s attempts to hire and fire federal workers: “Defense counsel is reminded of their duty to make truthful representations to the court.”
Reggie B. Walton, District of Columbia District, Appointed by George W. Bush
On the firing of two Democrats on the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board: To hold otherwise would be to bless the president’s obvious attempt to exercise power beyond that granted to him by the Constitution and shield the executive branch’s counterterrorism actions from independent oversight, public scrutiny and bipartisan congressional insight regarding those actions.”
Sparkle L. Sooknanan, District of Columbia District, Appointed by Joe Biden
On the firing of a Democrat on the Federal Labor Relations Authority: “The government’s arguments paint with a broad brush and threaten to upend fundamental protections in our Constitution. But ours is not an autocracy; it is a system of checks and balances.”
Susan Illston, Northern District of California, Appointed by Bill Clinton
On a plan to lay off thousands of federal workers: “Defendants want the court to either declare that nine presidents and 21 Congresses did not properly understand the separation of powers, or ignore how the executive branch is implementing large-scale reductions in force and reorganizations.”
William A. Fletcher, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Appointed by Bill Clinton
On a claim that an executive order was merely guidance: “Such a characterization is at best disingenuous, and at worst flatly contradictory to the record.”
William Alsup, Northern District of California, Appointed by Bill Clinton
On the withdrawal of an agency director’s sworn declaration: “Come on, that’s a sham. It upsets me. I want you to know that I’ve been practicing or serving in this court for over 50 years. And I know how that we get at the truth, and you’re not helping me get to add to the truth. You’re giving me press releases — sham documents.”
What Happens Next?
The judiciary’s willingness to confront Mr. Trump over the past six months has been vital. In other democracies that have slid toward autocracy, the complicity of judges has frequently been a key reason. For now, many American judges are standing firm. They have done so even as Mr. Trump and his allies have personally threatened judges and made many feel unsafe.
It remains unclear what will happen next. One scenario is optimistic — namely, that judges on lower courts will continue to constrain Mr. Trump, the Supreme Court will ultimately uphold most of these rulings and the administration will largely obey them. (An example came on Thursday, when a federal judge in New Hampshire blocked the executive order denying birthright citizenship, while also complying with a recent Supreme Court decision limiting nationwide rulings.) Other scenarios are more disturbing: that the Supreme Court becomes even more deferential to him, or that the administration flouts court rulings more blatantly than it already has.
Either way, federal judges have made clear that they consider Mr. Trump’s conduct to be more worrisome than the conduct of any other modern president.
Illustrations by Taylor Maggiacomo. Research by Rose Adams. Additional research by Adam Bonica of Stanford University. Additional production by Jeremy Ashkenas.
On birth right citizenship, SCOTUS could have ruled on birthright citizenship but chose not to. Don't be surprised when they support Trump and dismantle birthright citizenship.
On national injunctions, SCOTUS sided with Trump but did not allow the same for Biden.
On presidential immunity, SCOTUS gave immunity to Trump but reserved the right to rule on a case by case basis for other presidents, by not defining "official acts".
SCOTUS ruled praying by a public school coach on the 50 yard line was no religion but rather free speach and a Catholic adoption agency rejecting gay parents was freedom of religion, not civil rights.
Don't be surprised. This is a Trump court. They will do some minor stuff to make it look otherwise but on the important issues, SCOTUS is Trump.
Trump and the entire Republican regime including 2/3 of SCOTUS are indeed THE DEEPLY DEPRAVED STATE.